Appeal No. 96-3211
Application 07/928,717
at 14.) We conclude that the combination of references meets
these limitations. We have already found that Niitsu teaches
generating a difference signal between successive components of a
received luminance signal indicative of movement of an object.
Finding 14, supra. We have also already explained how an artisan
would have been led to use Niitsu's luminance frame difference
signal as a motion detector to switch from intermittent mode to
continuous mode in the combination of references. Conclusion 5,
supra. Thus, we conclude that the combination meets all of the
contested limitations of claim 10.
10. Applicant approaches claim 12 in much the same way as
claim 10. Niitsu's motion detection means generates a motion
detection signal. Suzuki uses a sensor signal, including motion
detection signals, to change recording modes (on/off) in a
surveillance system. Folsom teaches switching between an
intermittent (videotape-saving) mode and a continuous mode in
response to an alarm situation. See conclusion 5, supra.
Applicant has not explained how the recited limitations (Paper 33
at 15, listing motion detection and two recording modes) overcome
the combination. Thus, we conclude the combination renders
claim 12 obvious as well.
trigger the means-plus-function provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007